The States CP – Part 2- Theory

Teams seem to think its impossible to beat the states CP on theory. For a while during the 90’s, this may have been true. The last few domestic topics, however, have seen the states CP (and two related counterplans- the interstate compact/lopez and the constitutional amendment) run amok. I now believe that it is possible to beat this CP on theory in front of at least 60% of judges on the national circuit. Here are the arguments that you should make:

Reciprocity- reciprocity provides a guideline for dealing with arbitrary negative counter interpretations like we only get the states CP or other such nonsense (used to answer limits arguments related to international fiat). Reciprocity is the idea that the fiat playing ground should be relatively level. The states CP, particularly if it also involves federal action, is clearly not reciprocal with USFG action. A related point is that if the CP takes extra steps to spike out of solvency arguments like mandate uniformity or unevidenced planks that respond to 1AC evidence, this is not reciprocal as the affirmative fiat is limited by the topic and cannot be used to spike out of disads,. (though on the affirmative you could make the argument that CP’s expressly spiking out of aff offense legitimates intrinsicness arguments)

Real world- this means two things. First, no real world policy maker can chose between either the USFG acting or state action. This would mean it is anti educational to put the judge into that position. Second, little comparative literature is written that assumes uniform implementation by all states and territories vs the federal government. Uniform fiat allows the negative to gain a unilateral advantage- they get to assert it solves as well and people assume that its the aff burden to read evidence that uniform state action will not solve. You should also make an argument that since there is no evidence that assumes what the cp actually does that A) theoretical objections should be given more weight, and B) that even if you don’t go for theory the judge should lean affirmative on solvency arguments

There are other potential offensive arguments you can make, but I generally think it is better to select a few and explain them well.

One thing I would add is a voting issue argument about deterrence, I would phrase it as such: teams will use the states CP as a generic crutch if judges let them get away with it- voting against it forces teams to develop more case specific strategies which is better for topic education.

Now, how to deal with the common negative arguments

You must justify the term federal government
-Justification is a burden proved by solvency – not comparative action between agents- no aff can justify the USFG vs the everyone in the world be nice
-Disads can test the agent in a more fair manner
-reciprocity means they should test the agent by fiating a single state- they can read modeling solvency evidence and we can have a real debate

Its predictable- it’s the states counterplan
-debate theory has evolved to the point where the states cp is absurd- its more abusive than basically anything yet is allowed based on tradition
-evidence not debate practice should determine predictability- no evidence is written about the CP

It’s non topical- therefore its negative ground
-topicallity is a necessary but insufficient determination of fairness-the anarchy and world government counterplans are non topical

Requiring federal key warrants serves to limit the topic by reducing the affs that can be run strategically
-this limiting function warps education- it forces teams to the margins to try and find silly tricks to beat the states CP- this is anti educational


That’s pretty much all the specific states CP arguments I can think off of the top of my head, feel free to post any I missed in the comments.